• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama = Ghandi, Mandela?

What is your opinion when Obama is compared to Ghandi and Mandela?


  • Total voters
    27
SO you should have no problem showing the quote where he actually did compare himself to those two. Read beyond the headline and find it please.

@Mya

Ahh.. Redress is suddenly playing the "literal" game. You see Mya - if he didn't actually say, "I am now comparing myself to Ghandi and Mandela" then it didn't happen. This is what happens when people cannot be honest or are able to discuss openly issues they are obviously hyper-biased about. They play games.... typical.
 
@Mya

Ahh.. Redress is suddenly playing the "literal" game. You see Mya - if he didn't actually say, "I am now comparing myself to Ghandi and Mandela" then it didn't happen. This is what happens when people cannot be honest or are able to discuss openly issues they are obviously hyper-biased about. They play games.... typical.

Except he did not compare himself to either. You are playing the game where if he references them, he must be comparing himself to them. This is what happens when desperation sets in and people cannot be honest or are able to discuss openly issues they are obviously hyper-biased about. You have yet to even make the smallest attempt to actually show that he did compare himself to either of those people. You just expect people to take it as gospel, even though a fair number of people have come along and pointed out the exact same thing, that he did not in fact compare himself to Ghandi or Mandela. You have gone way out of your way to avoid actually making the case in fact.
 
The worst interpretation is that he could be doing a Bush, by inserting an unrelated word into a paragraph, such as mentioning "Iraq" in a discussion of Al-Qaeda and terrorism, and suddenly you all knew that Iraq was full of AQ terrorists and we're invading, even though he never actually said it....
As it stands, I don't think President Obama went that far, he just gave examples of hard rows to hoe, and some people who did that.
 
"Around the world, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, what they did was hard. It takes time. It takes more than a single term. "


So when he says it takes more than a single term,whom might I ask is he talking about? It seems undeniable to me he is putting himself in some pretty good company.
 
Ghandi and Mandela are both champions of social justice. More than anything else, they were cut from the same cloth as other left wing progressives of the mid 20th century. If they were Americans, they'd be lumped in the same field as FDR, Obama and pretty much everyone who disagrees with the notion that an elite minority should be in control of both government and the economy.
 
Last edited:
My impression was more that Obama mentioned Gandhi and Mandela as inspiring examples.

I don't remember exactly, but I think Bush and other Republicans too sometimes mention shining examples or idols, be that George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. When Bush mentioned one of those, for example, I would not assume he is comparing himself to those. He's just pointing out who inspires him.
 
My impression was more that Obama mentioned Gandhi and Mandela as inspiring examples.

I don't remember exactly, but I think Bush and other Republicans too sometimes mention shining examples or idols, be that George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. When Bush mentioned one of those, for example, I would not assume he is comparing himself to those. He's just pointing out who inspires him.

The dishonesty here lays in the fact that the American right wing and Ockham's personal idol Reagan were actually SILENT when it came to apartheid. Reagan supported the disgusting practice of "constructive engagement". Instead of supporting Mandela and the ANC they essentially tried to talk the South-African government out of power. No economic sanctions were imposed, no divestment. Instead Reagan and his bitch Thatcher supported white minority governments. Mandela? The right wingers didn't like him because he was too far to the left.
 
Ghandi and Mandela are both champions of social justice. More than anything else, they were cut from the same cloth as other left wing progressives of the mid 20th century. If they were Americans, they'd be lumped in the same field as FDR, Obama and pretty much everyone who disagrees with the notion that an elite minority should be in control of both government and the economy.
Obama supported bailouts for huge corporations, is chock full of wall street money, and allows bernanke to manipulate the economy unchecked. Not to mention the fact his administration is loaded with wall street execs.
 
Obama is a hypocrite. Just sayin'.
 
Obama supported bailouts for huge corporations, is chock full of wall street money, and allows bernanke to manipulate the economy unchecked. Not to mention the fact his administration is loaded with wall street execs.

So now Obama is pro-rich people? I thought you Libertarians called him a socialist?
 
My impression was more that Obama mentioned Gandhi and Mandela as inspiring examples.

I don't remember exactly, but I think Bush and other Republicans too sometimes mention shining examples or idols, be that George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. When Bush mentioned one of those, for example, I would not assume he is comparing himself to those. He's just pointing out who inspires him.

If you can give me a quote that is comparable to what obama said, where he puts himself in the same sentence with Washington or the like, where he tacks his name onto theirs, I will concede your point.
 
I think there is no need to bring up these great names from the past in every other word uttered.

It seems that he is trying to cover himself in the mystic mantle of their past glories.

May be he should change his speech writer.
 
If you can give me a quote that is comparable to what obama said, where he puts himself in the same sentence with Washington or the like, where he tacks his name onto theirs, I will concede your point.

If you Google "Obama compares himself to Lincoln," you'll find an example.
 
So now Obama is pro-rich people? I thought you Libertarians called him a socialist?
Not entirely, my point is that Obama has not shown the "anti-elite" tendencies you had claimed. Never called him a socialist, but I can't speak for others.
 
Well ill be damned. Another conservative taking an article and misquoting it and making a provactive title, with the only hope to bashing Obama. Now if you actually read the article you will find how ridiculously stupid this article is cuz no where does Obama compare himself to Ghandi or Mandella.
But to answer, Obama is no where close to Ghandi or Mandella.
 
It is socialism for the rich, and dumped losses for everyone else.

Come on guys make up your damn minds. I thought he was a do nothing. I thought he was communist. I thought he was a welfare president. I thought he was a socialist. Now its reverse socialism (corporatism).
 
It is socialism for the rich, and dumped losses for everyone else.

Hahaha - yes, socialism for the rich. No oxymorons there.
 
Mensch said:
It is socialism for the rich, and dumped losses for everyone else.

If by "socialism for the rich" you mean "socialism for the bourgeoisie", then...

What the **** dude. What the ****.

_______

Libertarian Newspeak is hilarious. I just stubbed my toe. Socialism!
 
Last edited:
I don't think the US has had a statesman of the stature of Gandhi and Mandela since Lincoln and even that's debatable. I'm not baiting, that's just how I feel. I'm a Brit and I don't think we've ever had one of that stature, Churchill most definitely included.
 
Come on guys make up your damn minds. I thought he was a do nothing. I thought he was communist. I thought he was a welfare president. I thought he was a socialist. Now its reverse socialism (corporatism).

Please do not lump me in with whoever you're thinking. I never said he was a communist. I never said he was a "do nothing" president. Welfare? Perhaps, but no more than the average American president post-FDR. Corporatism? ABSOLUTELY. But again, I don't put all the blame on Obama for our corporatist structure.
 
If by "socialism for the rich" you mean "socialism for the bourgeoisie", then...

What the **** dude. What the ****.

_______

Libertarian Newspeak is hilarious. I just stubbed my toe. Socialism!

This isn't primarily a libertarian sentiment. The OWS movement generally shares the same sentiment.
 
I don't think it is an insult for Obama to be compared to the two, I just do not think that the analogy is appropriate.

That being said, his message was mostly about progress and the difficulties that lie therein. In that aspect, it makes sense if not a bit grandiose.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom